1. HRH
Prince Henry of Wales complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation that the Daily Mail breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2
(Opportunity to reply) and Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Harry and Pippa in love says US magazine”, published
on 10 December 2015.

2. The
article reported that a magazine, published in the US, had claimed that the
complainant and Pippa Middleton were in “a budding romance”. It said that the
magazine had made “extraordinary allegations that the Duchess of Cambridge
found her sister and brother-in-law ‘snogging in a bathroom’ at the royal
wedding”. It said that the magazine had “breathlessly” claimed that there had
always been “sexual tension” between the pair, but now that they were single
they were “free to act on their mutual attraction”. The piece concluded by
stating that the Palace had yet to comment on the claims, “though it may not
bother” as the US magazine had a “history of ‘revealing’ celebrity couplings
hotly denied by those involved”.

3. The
complainant said that the newspaper had repeated claims made in a US magazine that
were “completely untrue”, and that the newspaper had failed to corroborate the
facts before publication. He noted that the article had called the claims
“extraordinary” but considered that it had not asserted categorically that they
were false. He argued that the newspaper could not justify the publication of
inaccurate information simply by attributing it to a third party. As the US
magazine was not considered to be a reliable source of information in the US,
and the newspaper had attached no credence to the claims, it should not have
repeated them. In addition, it had republished the magazine’s front page, which
showed an image of him that had been doctored to give the appearance that he
had been partially clothed on a beach with Ms Middleton; there was no mention
of the fact that the image had been altered.

4. The complainant said that
despite the falsity of the claims, the story had concerned private – in
particular sexual – information about which he had a reasonable expectation of
privacy. He did not accept that this expectation had been reduced because the
claims had already been published by a magazine with a limited hard-copy
circulation in the US. In contrast, this newspaper had circulated the claims in
the UK and worldwide, and numerous publications had followed suit. The
complainant requested the removal of the online article and a prominent
apology.

5. The
newspaper said that its article had made clear that it was not an account of a
relationship between the complainant and Ms Middleton; it was a report about an
article, which had appeared in a prominent US magazine. It noted that its piece
had contained seven references – including in its headline – to the fact that
these were claims made by the magazine. It noted that its piece had also said
that the magazine had no substantiation for the claims and that they had not
been confirmed or commented on by the complainant’s representatives.

6. The newspaper said that Mail
Online had covered the story separately, and the website’s journalist had sought
comment from the complainant’s representatives before publication. That
opportunity had not been taken, and this had been reflected in the newspaper’s
article. It rejected the complainant’s position that Mail Online had been told
that the claims were a “complete fiction”. In fact, the complainant’s
representative had said that they had not read the US article, but that the
magazine “regularly reports complete fiction like this”. Following publication
of the Mail Online article, a member of the website’s staff had offered to
publish the Palace’s response to it, but had been told that there were “no
circumstances where we would provide comment for a story like that”.

7. The newspaper did not consider
that it was acceptable for Kensington Palace to dictate what it could report.
It said that it was also unacceptable for the Palace to respond to claims by
issuing denials, which it refused to confirm on the record, thereby making the
denials unreportable. Had a denial been issued, the newspaper would have published
it.

8. The newspaper said that it had
reported claims made by a magazine with a readership of 4.4 million; the
allegations were clearly already in the public domain. It also argued that the
fact of a relationship between two unmarried individuals was not private,
particularly when one of those individuals was a senior member of the royal
family; the relationship between the complainant and Ms Middleton had been the
subject of widespread comment since the royal wedding.

9. The newspaper did not accept
any inaccuracies and therefore it did not consider that an opportunity to reply
was required. It said it would be happy, however, to publish a follow-up
article or the following wording in the Corrections & Clarifications column
on page two:

In common with many other publications
and global digital news sites, on December 10 we reported that a major American
magazine had claimed there was a relationship between Prince Harry and Pippa
Middleton. Our article was clearly sceptical about the veracity of the
magazine’s claims. We are also happy to make clear that Prince Harry’s
spokesman has since confirmed for the record there is no truth whatsoever in
the magazine’s story.

Relevant
Code provisions

10. Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement
or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due
prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving
the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Opportunity to reply)

A fair opportunity for reply to inaccuracies must
be given when reasonably called for.

Clause 3 (Privacy)

i)
Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home,
health and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii)
Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private
life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public
disclosures of information.

Findings
of the Committee

11. These
were unsubstantiated claims, which were reported as such. The newspaper had
taken care to ensure that the claims were reported with due scepticism. For
instance, the first line of the article had said “it all sounds rather too much
like a plot dreamed up in a Hollywood movie”; the second line had described the
claims as “extraordinary allegations”; and the final line had said that the US
magazine had a “history” of reporting claims about celebrity relationships that
were “hotly denied”.

12. The
newspaper had published the article in the knowledge that Kensington Palace had
no intention of commenting on the story. However, the article had emphasised
that the newspaper attached no credence to the claims, and it alerted readers
to the fact that there were good reasons to doubt their accuracy. In such
circumstances, there was no failure to take care over the accuracy of the
article in breach of Clause 1(i). The article was not significantly misleading
in breach of Clause 1(ii).

13. It was clear that the “doctored”
image formed part of the cover of the US magazine, and where doubt was cast on
the truth of its claims, the republication of the cover was not significantly
misleading. The complaint under Clause 1 was not upheld.

14. The claims made about the
complainant and Ms Middleton had the potential to intrude into his private
life. The terms of Clause 3 were engaged,
regardless of the accuracy of the allegations.

15. The article, however, had clearly suggested that the claims were not to be
believed. The fact that the newspaper was clearly dismissive of the
speculation, and the tone it had adopted in the piece, diminished any intrusive
effect that the speculation may have had. Furthermore, the claims had already
been published by a magazine with a circulation of 4.4 million readers. The
level of intrusion did not amount to a breach of Clause 3. The complaint under
Clause 3 was not upheld.

16. The
terms of Clause 2 provide people with the opportunity to reply to published
inaccuracies. No inaccuracies had been established by the Committee, and
the complainant had not requested an opportunity to reply. There was no breach
of Clause 2.

This website uses cookies that provide necessary site functionality and improve your online experience. By continuing to use this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Our cookies notice provides more information about what cookies we use and how you can change them.